Last night the Palo Alto City Council voted, 7 to 2, to pass an ordinance for sleeping in a car in any public parking lot, street or other public place. I’ve been working for a little over three weeks, together with dozens of other people, to try to convince the council not to pass this ordinance. I’ve also been trying to learn why they held this position. Last night many people said many things to the council. Many more people in the city against the ordinance showed up at the meeting. Because there were so many people, we were each allowed to speak for only 1 minute. Here is what I said.
Hi my name is Rachel Wright. My husband Elliott and I live here in Palo
Alto. I want to thank both the council
and the coalition opposing this ordinance for giving their time to serve this
community. As Councilwoman Shepherd
knows I am striving to understand where this ordinance came from and why anyone
would support it. I recognize that the
council is frustrated that citizens haven’t mobilized sufficiently to address
concerns related to vehicle dwelling and homelessness. That said this ordinance does not solve this
problem. Instead it is easily understood
as a symbol of disregard if not an attack on some of our most vulnerable
community members. The ordinance offends
the dignity of people without homes by saying “it is illegal to sleep in the
only safe space you have.” Read more broadly it tells them “you don’t belong
here” and unfairly discriminates against them on the sole basis of their financial
situation. If you believe the ordinance
won’t actually hurt anyone because people who sleep in their cars will continue
to do so without detection, you are wrong.
It dehumanizes them because it says you must stay invisible. Please do not vote for an unjust ordinance
out of frustration. Vote against this
ordinance.
Throughout the democratic
process, listening to people’s testimonies and the council’s explanations I vacillated
between many emotions. When the homeless
who are going to have nowhere else to go, because Palo Alto has woefully
inadequate options, I cried. Sometimes I
felt some understanding: the council
members truly feel hamstrung on how they are supposed to deal with the fact
that some people that live in their cars have nowhere to use the bathroom and
that our community center was never intended to informally house dozens of
people. When politicians were looking
for cover or community members suggested this was the solution to their fear for
their children in public I muttered under my breath in frustration.
In fact, I’m sympathetic to
the problems unregulated parking lots that become “de facto” homeless shelters
may pose. Yet, I’m flabbergasted that in
one of the richest counties in the US, one of the richest nations in the world,
in history there are human beings sleeping in their cars whose next option is
to sleep on the street if they wish to be secure in the knowledge that they won’t
receive a $1000 fine.
The bigger question that
arose for me throughout this debate was – what is the role of government? Government is slow and expensive. A councilperson told me a nonprofit should
deal with the issue because government employees with benefits are so much more
costly. Furthermore, when it gets
entangled in government every citizen has a voice in the decisions that are
made. Sadly, in a democracy, when these
decisions affect those who are stigmatized, hated and very vulnerable the “solutions”
that arise can be degrading, harmful, and insufficient because the majority don’t
want to help. It seems like the
nonprofit sector is the way to go.
But, in the end, I come down
on the side of government for a couple of reasons. First, there is a difference between
voluntary charity and an entitlement.
When a nonprofit is funded through donations whims and changes in
fashion can mean that their “solutions” are no longer sustainable. When a government commits to funding
something through tax money, those projects are usually (though not always) more
stable. Second, and more importantly
when government does something it provides a sense of legitimacy. It says, “All
citizens need to take part in funding this because it is important.” It is the government that grants and
guarantees our civil rights. In the end,
that is why this ordinance is so problematic to me. It says that some people aren’t allowed to
use our public streets even when they are not committing any crime. It discriminates against particular
individuals, low-income individuals, just for sleeping.
The government failed us last
night. It did not uphold equality
because that would have been inconvenient.
Yet, this situation gives me a new respect for all those public servants
facing real social problems. Thank you
to the librarian in an unsafe neighborhood who maintains a safe place for kids
to study even with the challenges and discouraging moments. Thanks to the public transit folks who must keep
services open to all of us even those who are ill and have been known to assault
them. Thank you to the police and
firemen who put their lives on the line, sometimes daily, to protect us. Next to that, it may seem silly, but thank
you to the community center employee who, unlike many of the neighbors, took a
stand and said she is willing to deal with the challenges until a better
solution can be found. Finally, thank
you to Elliott, Sandra, and Priya for your stalwart support.
I’m prayerful that we can
move forward. That I can contribute to
rectifying this inequality by getting more funding for affordable housing,
better wages for working people, and better services for those in need of them.
quoted in the local paper too:
quoted in the local paper too:
Posts
